Email

Activists of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) shout slogans during a procession in Srinagar on April 18, 2015 | Mukhtar Khan, AP

New York, September 30, 2015

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif takes the floor at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and makes a speech far more direct than most in the audience expect. “Since 1947, the Kashmir dispute has remained unresolved. [The] UN [United Nations] Security Council resolutions have remained unimplemented. Three generations of Kashmiris have only seen broken promises and brutal oppression. Over 100,000 have died in their struggle for self-determination. This is the most persistent failure of the United Nations,” he states.

This is not the only time in recent weeks that Pakistan has raised the Kashmir issue. On October 22, 2015, when Sharif meets President Barack Obama at the White House, the K word makes a conspicuous entry into their joint statement: “The leaders emphasised the importance of a sustained and resilient dialogue process between the two neighbors aimed at resolving all outstanding territorial and other disputes, including Kashmir, through peaceful means and working together to address mutual concerns of India and Pakistan regarding terrorism.”

India’s reaction has been predictably dismissive to this renewed vigour in Pakistan’s pursuit of Kashmir. “India has always desired resolution of all issues with Pakistan bilaterally through dialogue and peaceful means,” is how a spokesman of India’s Ministry of External Affairs reacts to the joint statement issued after the Sharif-Obama meeting. The curt rejection of suggestions that outsiders may have a role in the resolution of the Kashmir issue is quite obvious in the spokesman’s rejoinder.

Illustrations by Ayesha Haroon

Islamabad and New Delhi are certainly saying nothing new as far as their respective stances on Kashmir are concerned. Yet it is quite clear that the conflict in and about this long-disputed region is back on centre stage — and not entirely because of Pakistan’s efforts. Kashmiris have launched a non-violent agitation movement since 2010 amid arrests, custodial deaths and relentless military oppression. They have, indeed, paid a very heavy price for many decades to get their story across to the world.

For the most part, Kashmir has been known to people through state representations. This is true for Kashmir’s history and perhaps equally so for the policies of the two states towards it. Both Islamabad and New Delhi ceaselessly try to expunge from public imagination anything that questions, albeit remotely, their official narratives on Kashmir even when the two narratives sometimes are as divergent from truth as they are from each other. Some of their most glaring contradictions and lies came to the surface for the first time when India’s Ministry of External Affairs recently declassified its archived documents, covering 50 years of the country’s foreign relations starting with 1947.

Kashmir’s story, as presented here on, is mainly reconstructed through those declassified documents. Where the documents are not available, especially for the post-1997 era, the narrative is continued by citing other primary sources. What follows is a historical account of the tragedy of Kashmir. A tragedy that stems from a ceaseless contestation for a pursuit based on two arbitrary – and conflicting – claims put forth by Pakistan and India.

Delhi, August 1947

It was supposed to be a new world that Lord Mountbatten traversed in those last months of 1947 as British India’s last viceroy. The Indian subcontinent, so long the jewel in Great Britain’s imperial crown, had been born anew and transformed into two sovereign states. And yet, as he made his way from Delhi to Karachi, it must have occurred to Mountbatten how little things had actually changed. Decades of nationalist struggle, two world wars, a formal transfer of power and millions of deaths later, he still had to mediate between the leaders of the new subcontinent. They were still grappling with – and fighting over – a number of unanswered questions. Perched on the very top of those questions was the one of Kashmir.

The British Raj in the Indian subcontinent had always been a highly complicated affair. To run an imperial enterprise spread over half a continent, the British authorities had to create and maintain several types of territorial arrangements, much like the Mughals before it. The British had to weave an intricate web of local collaborations that included a buffer zone between India and Afghanistan, hundreds of princely states of various sizes, that had a certain degree of legal and administrative autonomy from the Raj within their borders, and many directly administered provinces and territories. The decolonisation process spelled the unravelling of this web.

Based on map number 3828, revision 21, United Nations, September 2015. Department of Field Support Geospatial Information Section. | Illustration by Zehra Nawab

The two new states – India and Pakistan – that emerged from the decolonisation process could not operate under the same legal, political and administrative paradigm which the British had. The geographical unity of the two states could only be maintained if they came up with new political and legal arrangements to integrate swathes of territory, both big and small, that once belonged to the princely states. In order to deal with this challenge, the two states embarked on projects to absorb such territories into their respective borders as quickly as possible. There was no universally acknowledged single instrument to achieve this. Both states used a similar repertoire of techniques — negotiating accession treaties, making deals with local elites and, in certain cases, sending in troops to snuff out opposition.

The Kashmir crisis was born out of the discontents of the twin processes of decolonisation and territorial integration by India and Pakistan. Jammu and Kashmir was a princely state which the East India Company had annexed in 1846 and then transferred to Gulab Singh of the Dogra dynasty for a payment of 7,500,000 rupees. As the British exit from the subcontinent became apparent, the then ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, Hari Singh, wished to remain independent. This was obviously not going to be acceptable to either India or Pakistan. Four major rivers originate from the Himalayas located in Kashmir and it also shares a border with China — the two factors that make it a strategically crucial region. In other words it is a prized territory. Both states, therefore, formed strategies to lay claim to it.

Delhi, September 27, 1947

India’s deputy prime minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel received an urgent letter from Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru regarding the situation in Kashmir. Nehru was convinced that Pakistan was preparing to infiltrate the region and foster an insurgency. He also knew Maharaja Hari Singh’s forces could not do much to stop infiltration without help from India. More importantly, Nehru realised, Hari Singh’s regime could not be sustained if its own people went against it.

Sheikh Abdullah headed the largest political party in Kashmir – the National Conference – but he was a staunch opponent of the Dogra dynasty. He had initiated a “Quit Kashmir” movement before the British left India in 1947 and, hence, was imprisoned in May 1946. Nehru wanted him freed. He noted in his letter that Sheikh Abdullah was eager not to join Pakistan. His opposition to Hari Singh, therefore, was not tantamount to support for accession to Pakistan. If the Indian government could work out a rapprochement between Hari Singh and Sheikh Abdullah, Nehru suggested to Patel, Kashmir’s accession to India would become easier.

The final phase of the partition of India: Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan with Viceroy Mountbatten and Congress leaders during a meeting on June 2, 1947 | White Star Photo Archives

“It seems to me urgently necessary, therefore, that the accession to the Indian Union should take place early. It is equally clear to me that this can only take place with some measure of success after there is peace between the Maharaja and the National Conference and they co-operate together to meet the situation,” Nehru wrote. “…Abdullah is very anxious to keep out of Pakistan and relies upon us a great deal for advice.” But, at the same time, he “cannot carry his people with him unless he has something definite to place before them. What this can be in the circumstances I cannot define precisely at the present moment. But the main thing is that the Maharaja should try to gain the goodwill and cooperation of Abdullah,” Nehru added. “It would be a tragedy if the National Conference remains passive owing to frustration and lack of opportunity.”

Nehru’s predictions about a likely infiltration into Kashmir were proven true. By October 1947, tribal militias from Murree, Hazara and parts of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) raided the valley through the Poonch area and began a widespread campaign to destabilise the Maharaja’s regime. The Maharaja looked to India for help which he got only after promising to sign an instrument of accession in favour of New Delhi.

Writing to British Prime Minister Clement Attlee, Nehru argued that the Indian intervention in Kashmir was a response to an urgent appeal from the government of Jammu and Kashmir for help against tribal invaders who, he claimed, were aided and abetted by the Pakistani government.

Pakistan denied any involvement. Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan insisted the actions by the tribesmen were an almost instinctive response to the atrocities being committed against Muslims in Kashmir. In his correspondence with Nehru, he argued that the tribesmen were helped by local Kashmiri Muslims who sought liberation. Liaquat Ali Khan also pointed out that the government in Kashmir had manipulated the situation in order to accede to India against the wishes of its own people. For Governor General Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the accession was nothing short of a coup d’etat.

A different story hid behind these public statements. On November 1, 1947, Mountbatten and his chief of staff, Lord Ismay, travelled to Lahore and met separately with both Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan. When he recorded the daily proceedings in his notebook, Mountbatten could not help but say the tribesmen had been acting on the express and direct command of the Pakistani leadership. Implicitly, Jinnah accepted as much to Mountbatten. “When I asked him how the tribesmen were to be called off, he said that all he had to do was to give them an order to come out and to warn them that if they did not comply, he would send large forces along their lines of communication. In fact, if I was prepared to fly to Srinagar with him, he would guarantee that the business would be settled within 24 hours. I expressed mild astonishment at the degree of control that he appeared to exercise over the raiders,” Mountbatten wrote.

Pakistani strategy was to create enough pressure on the Maharaja to abdicate, to then claim that the region should become a part of Pakistan because most people living in Jammu and Kashmir are Muslims. The Pakistani government knew only an indigenous revolt could preclude India from holding on to Kashmir. But therein lay Pakistan’s greatest challenge: The Muslim League had virtually no presence in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan had no guarantee that the people of Kashmir would overwhelmingly vote to be part of Pakistan.

Pakistani leadership was aware of the problem which is why both Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan consistently rejected a plebiscite in Kashmir as long as Indian troops were there. “If the India Government [is] allowed to act…unfettered as [it pleases] by virtue of having already occupied Kashmir and landed their troops there, then, this El Dorado of plebiscite will prove a mirage,” read an official Pakistan statement. During negotiations with Mountbatten, Jinnah strongly objected to having a plebiscite even under the auspices of the UN, maintaining that the presence of Indian troops as well as Sheikh Abdullah’s tilt towards India would deter the average Muslim in Kashmir from voting for Pakistan. In a letter to Attlee, Liaquat Ali Khan described Sheikh Abdullah as a “quisling” and a “paid agent of the Congress for the last two decades”.

In a December 1947 meeting with his Indian counterpart, Liaquat Ali Khan also questioned the efficacy of a voting process in Kashmir while it was under an India-sponsored administration. “…[T]he people of Kashmir were bound to vote, in the plebiscite, in favour of whatever administration was then in power. The Kashmiris were an illiterate and oppressed people, and they would be bound to favor the authority in possession. If an Englishman went as administrator, they would vote to join the United Kingdom,” he said.

That not only the Maharaja but also the National Conference favoured India was the advantage Nehru wanted. In his correspondence with Indian politicians, he pointed out that any activity by Pakistan would look illegal and unacceptable after Kashmir had acceded to India. He was right. After the Maharaja acceded to India on October 26, 1947, New Delhi was successful in portraying to the rest of the world that Pakistan-supported militant activity was an act of belligerence. This would remain the thrust of India’s case against Pakistan for the times to come.

Indian policemen detain JKLF activists during a protest against the Indian army in Srinagar | Dar Yasin, AP

The accession also formed the basis for a justification of India’s military presence in Kashmir. The Indian government argued it was well within its right to send troops to drive away outsiders from what it considered Indian territory. When Pakistan contended that it would only attempt to ensure the withdrawal of tribal militias if that coincided with a simultaneous withdrawal of Indian forces from Kashmir, the Indians simply refused, arguing that the presence of the two forces could not be treated the same way.

By the end of 1947, India decided to apprise the world of what it called Pakistani intrusion in Kashmir. In a meeting with Mountbatten in December that year, Nehru suggested India should raise the issue at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), “charging Pakistan with aggression and asking UNO [United Nations Organization] to call upon Pakistan to refrain from doing so”. If the Security Council failed to make Pakistan stop its “aggression”, he warned, “we would have to take action ourselves in such a manner as we thought fit to stop this aggression at the base.”

When Mountbatten suggested that the “UNO [should] supervise and carry out a plebiscite as we had previously declared” once “law and order has been restored”, Nehru replied with a definitive no. When India had made a unilateral offer for a plebiscite after partition, he argued, Pakistan rejected it and instead chose to support chaos in the valley. It was that chaos that made the plebiscite unfeasible, he declared.

Pakistan’s early policy in Kashmir obviously failed to result in any legitimacy for Pakistan’s claim. Within its borders, however, the Pakistani state was incredibly successful in cementing Kashmir as an invaluable, indispensable and eternal part of the Pakistani national imagination. Primarily, this was a function of fervent propaganda campaigns carried out by newspapers such as Dawn, Jang, Nawa-i-Waqt and Zamindar as well as through radio broadcasts and publishing special pamphlets, books and plays. Several films produced in this era also carried an explicit message that Kashmir belonged to Pakistan and it was incumbent on the Pakistani state and society to take necessary measures to realise its integration within Pakistan.

Both Islamabad and New Delhi ceaselessly try to expunge from public
imagination anything that questions, albeit remotely, their official
narratives on Kashmir even when the two narratives sometimes are as
divergent from truth as they are from each other.

The overarching theme pervading this propaganda was the two-nation theory that Muslims were different from the Hindus and, therefore, the two cannot live together. Within a few short years after independence, the Pakistani media had convinced the citizenry that pursuing Kashmir through any means was not only legitimate, it was also noble.

The argument was simple: Kashmir was a Muslim majority area and hence could not be ruled by Hindus. By promoting such a narrative, the Pakistani state ensured that the Kashmir question was enmeshed with the question of Pakistani identity and that both questions were framed in religious terms.

This narrative, however, translated into little bargaining power during negotiations with India. Unsurprisingly, when Liaquat Ali Khan exchanged letters with Indian and British leaders, he seldom made a reference to Islam or jihad. His arguments, instead, rested entirely on the Kashmiris’ right to self-determine their political future. Pakistan posited that India had forcibly and undemocratically annexed Kashmir without taking the will of the people into account.

In the age of decolonisation, self-determination was considered a universal right and carried far more weight than the two-nation theory. Highlighting its absence as the core reason for the problem in Kashmir, indeed, forced India on the defensive. On several occasions, Nehru had to give assurances that a plebiscite would eventually take place and that the mandate of the Kashmiri people will be respected.

This apologetic Indian reaction convinced the Pakistani ruling elite that if it needed to force India to a negotiating table, it needed help — from powerful friends.

New York, November 1952

Sir Gladwyn Jebb, the British representative to the UN, handed a draft resolution on Kashmir to his Indian counterpart Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit who hurriedly wrote to Nehru, telling him that Britain and the United States were prepared to take the matter to the UNGA if India did not move within the next 30 days. A debate in the General Assembly and a possible resolution against India could be a national embarrassment, she said.

Nehru was aghast. “Have the English learnt nothing at all during the last few years? I am not thinking so much of their draft resolution, although that is bad enough, but rather of the way they think they can bully us. If there is one thing that all the powers in the world cannot do, it is to bully us,” he wrote in his feverish reply to Pandit.

Nehru’s frustration with Britain and the US had been growing for the past couple of years. He believed British and American patronage was the chief reason why Pakistan was being abrasive towards India. The Pakistani establishment, indeed, was seeking political and military support from the two countries in return for strategic loyalty. Quickly though, the Pakistani elite realised that its efforts would have to be directed mostly towards the US as Britain had little economic and political clout left in the post-World War II era. While the sun was setting on the British Empire, the American pursuit of hegemony in the postcolonial world had just begun.

This period was also the beginning of the Cold War, the ideological conflict between the US and the Soviet Union that would last for the rest of the 20th century and engulf the entire world. Policymakers in the White House and the State Department were deeply anxious to enlarge the American sphere of influence to ensure that newly formed states did not gravitate towards the Soviet camp.

The American reaction to the first phase of the Kashmir crisis was to impose an arms embargo on both Pakistan and India. But this policy had to change with the beginning of the 1950s. As the realities of the Cold War took centre stage, American policymakers aggressively pursued the policy of “containment” against the “communist virus” and they found in Pakistan a willing partner in their pursuit of this policy in the subcontinent.

In 1950, Liaquat Ali Khan publicly admitted that Pakistan would “seize the opportunity eagerly” should the US decide to give it as much importance as it gave to Turkey. Keen on developing a stronghold in the Middle East, the Americans were planning a multilateral security arrangement among Iran, Iraq and Turkey, their allies in the region. Given its geographical proximity to the Middle East, Pakistan could be included in this collective.

While Britain had reservations about including Pakistan in a Middle East collective and warned the Americans about the possible negative effects it might have on the relations between Washington and New Delhi, policymakers in the US remained determined to make Pakistan a client state. For its part, Pakistan received strong warnings from Moscow and Beijing against such an arrangement but the Pakistani establishment was adamant on securing military aid from the US.

When American Secretary of State John Foster Dulles visited Pakistan in the summer of 1953, he was deeply heartened to see Pakistan’s enthusiasm to ally with his country. In December that year, American Vice President Richard Nixon visited the subcontinent and concluded that America needed to sacrifice a potential relationship with India for one with Pakistan. In 1954, Pakistan became part of the South East Asian Treaty Organization (Seato) that also included Australia, France, New Zealand, the Philippines, Thailand, the UK and the US; in early 1955, it joined the Baghdad Pact along with Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Britain and the US.

While the rebel in him might have been defiant, the politician in Nehru understood that these alliances had changed the power dynamics in South Asia. Equally importantly, the situation in Kashmir was changing and support for Pakistan was emerging among the Kashmiris. In 1953, Nehru acknowledged that a pro-Pakistan lobby was present in Kashmir valley alongside a pro-India one.

A number of political actors, including Sheikh Abdullah – who, by then, had become the prime minister of Jammu and Kashmir – also started imagining a possibly independent Kashmir. He went to the extent of stating that his government was not bound by the accession treaty signed by the Maharaja. Many in India’s ruling Congress party, who considered him a friend, were shocked by the statement. New Delhi could simply not afford a popular challenge to the accession treaty. Sheikh Abdullah was, therefore, sentenced to 11 years in prison under what became the infamous “Kashmir conspiracy case”.

All these developments forced Indian leaders to seek a lasting, internationally-recognised agreement over Kashmir. In May 1955, Nehru met with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Bogra and his interior minister Iskander Mirza in Delhi. Senior Indian minister Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was also present during the talks which lasted for three consecutive days.

Despite tumultuous relations between the two states, the air in the negotiation room was gracious, even hopeful. Nehru frankly admitted that the American military aid had changed security circumstances in the subcontinent since “it brought the prospect of world war to our door”. Bogra, however, assured his Indian counterpart that Pakistan desired nothing but friendliness with its neighbour to the east. At one point, he even said: “India [is] a big country, the big sister of Pakistan…India should, therefore, be generous and magnanimous”.

While the two states were putting up a rare show of mutual understanding, the voice of the Kashmiris was conspicuously missing from their discussions. The real question being discussed was a partition of Kashmir. Before the Delhi meeting, Pakistan’s Governor General Malik Ghulam Muhammad had informally proposed that a large tract of land north of the Chenab River should be transferred to Pakistan and that Kashmir, as a whole, should come under some sort of a joint supervision by the two states.

For Nehru, these proposals were “completely impractical”. The Indian side could never give up territory because the Indian constitution stipulated that the government in Delhi could not alter the boundaries of the state of Jammu and Kashmir without the consent of the state’s own legislature.

While Bogra agreed that the Governor General’s proposals were unfeasible, he emphasised that he could not return to Pakistan empty-handed. “Something had to be done to make [the people of Pakistan] feel that they had gained something,” is what Bogra told Nehru who said India could transfer only the Poonch district to Pakistan. Bogra and Mirza sombrely announced that “if they accepted the Indian proposal, they would be blown sky-high in Pakistan”.

JKLF Chairman Yasin Malik, centre, attends a memorial service to mark the anniversary of an alleged massacre in Srinagar | Mukhtar Khan, AP

Their concerns were not exaggerated. Many political and religious leaders in Pakistan were mobilising people for an Islamic war in Kashmir. On August 14, 1953, Chaudhry Khaliquzzaman, then governor of East Pakistan, exhorted the Pakistanis to “keep their swords shining and horses ready”. Feroz Khan Noon, the then chief minister of Punjab, said in a public meeting in Lahore, two days later, that the Indian government had gone “back on [the] international understanding between the two countries” by sending troops into “a predominantly Muslim country — Kashmir”.

Such provocations, mirrored relentlessly by the Pakistani press and radio, could only lead to an atmosphere full of deep acrimony where conflict was celebrated and peace was mocked as a manifestation of weakness. In 1954, a pamphlet entitled Fatwa was published in Pakistan which contained virulently anti-India contents with reference to Kashmir. The Indian High Commission in Pakistan requested the Pakistani government to withdraw the pamphlet. The request was turned down.

In these politically charged circumstances, Bogra and Mirza could not make any concessions without risking the fall of their government. The same militaristic narrative that the Pakistani state was actively promoting, thus, circumscribed its negotiating power.

When the two sides returned to the negotiating table the next day, Bogra produced a map of Jammu and Kashmir. It was divided into two parts: the Hindu areas which amounted to a few districts around Jammu were coloured yellow while the rest of the map was coloured green to indicate the Muslim majority areas. The Pakistani delegates suggested a “large area of the Jammu province including Poonch, Riyasi, Udhampur” could go to India along with the “possible transfer of Skardu to India”.

Azad, at that point, stated that India could at best agree to concede some parts of Mirpur district alongside Poonch to Pakistan. For Nehru, the acceptance of Pakistani proposals was as good as an Indian “defeat and the dictation of terms” by Pakistan which, he said, no Indian government could accept. Mirza responded by stating that all he could do was report back to his government in Karachi. And on that inconclusive note, the negotiations ended.

Although the talks achieved nothing, they clearly depicted that Kashmir had turned into a territorial dispute. The ultimate object on the negotiating table was a map — a cartographic representation of space bereft of people and their history, identities, voices and relationships. The Kashmiri ‘self’ – which Pakistan ostensibly wanted to guard under the banner of Islam and which India wanted to protect under its constitution – was actually considered wholly fluid and expendable, something that could be cut up by the two states wantonly. The important question was not whether to cut Kashmir or not — it was how to go about cutting it. And so it has remained since then.

Karachi, February 8, 1963

A young Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hunched over a sprawling map of Kashmir, surrounded by the delegates he was leading as Pakistan’s foreign minister. They were in the middle of the third round of talks with their counterparts from India. The first two rounds had taken place in Rawalpindi and Delhi. The agenda was now a familiar one — the drawing of a boundary that could divide Kashmir between India and Pakistan.

The Pakistani delegation was anxious. “We must draw lines on the map,” they insisted. As ever, it seemed an impossible exercise. Swaran Singh, India’s foreign minister and the head of the Indian delegation, drew a line on the map indicating his side’s “readiness to concede in favor of Pakistan the rich forest areas in the north, on both sides of the Kishenganga River”. He also suggested that India was ready to concede some more areas in the west and north of the Kashmir valley.

The Pakistani negotiators appeared shocked at the meagreness of his offer. Bhutto prepared a counter offer — only Kathua, a district on the border with Punjab, and some adjoining areas from other districts would go to India while Pakistan would be entitled to all the others areas up to Ladakh in the north-east and including Srinagar, Jammu, Udhampur and Riyasi districts. The Indians immediately shot down these suggestions as “ridiculous”.

The invasion by the “Azad Forces” led to massive retaliation by the
Indian military not only against Pakistan but also within the state of
Jammu and Kashmir. An intense military campaign was started to rid
Kashmir of outside elements as well as any local pro-Pakistani
activists.

Bhutto perhaps believed that placing such a huge demand would compel the Indians to revise their original offer, convincing them to give up more territory. Singh, however, was determined not to cede anything more than he had offered. He said he was willing to accept an end to the talks, seeing little point in another round scheduled in Calcutta that March.

The angst, the arguments and the outcome — nothing that happened in Karachi was unexpected but the world in which these talks took place was being critically transformed.

In 1958, Field Marshal Ayub Khan launched a coup d’état against the civilian government and set himself in power as the Chief Martial Law Administrator of Pakistan. His martial law regime was bent upon consolidating the central authority in Pakistan, reigning in recalcitrant provinces and establishing its writ at all costs. And, despite all the trouble at home, Kashmir figured prominently in the military government’s imagination. Critical to this pursuit was the acquisition of military aid and international support against India. The US remained a crucial supporter in this regard and the Pakistani state continued to identify itself as a strategic ally of the West against the “menace of communism”.
Relations between India and Pakistan also soured further under the martial law regime despite some high-level talks, including a one-on-one meeting between Nehru and Ayub Khan. By 1961, public confrontations between the two states peaked with accusations flying between them.

That year also marked the inauguration of John F Kennedy as the 35th president of the United States. His administration was keen on a rapprochement with India. Pakistan, obviously uncomfortable with such a policy, realised it could not rely merely on the United States and needed to expand its international support base. The Soviet Union was across a vast ideological gulf from Pakistan and, more importantly, had very friendly relations with India. Pakistan, therefore, began courting the People’s Republic of China.
Beginning with Nikita Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin’s legacy, China-Soviet relations had been rapidly worsening. By 1961, there was an official parting of ways. During this time, relations between China and India also experienced a sharp decline owing to a series of conflicts on the Himalayan border between the two countries. These conflicts eventually resulted in the 1962 Sino-Indian War.

China’s anti-India stance as well as its victory in the 1962 war made China a possibly important ally for Pakistan. Internal correspondences among Indian officials in the early 1960s show their anxiety over a possible Pakistan-China secret deal and a possible Chinese involvement in Kashmir. Rajeshwar Dayal, India’s high commissioner in Pakistan, went to the extent of warning Ayub Khan against befriending China. “I warned the President [of Pakistan] that if China was no friend of ours, it was much less a friend of Pakistan’s. Bringing China into the Kashmir dispute would make the problem completely insoluble, for the Chinese would be playing only their own game.” He then reminded Ayub Khan of “his own views regarding China’s aggressiveness and expansionism” and his declaration in November, 1959, “that Pakistan would not take advantage of India’s difficulties with China”.

Indian fears were confirmed when, during the very first round of Pakistan-India talks in early 1963, the Pakistani side announced having reached an agreement with China on Kashmir’s border with the Chinese region of Sinkiang (now spelled Xinjiang). The Indian delegation was shocked not only at the nature of the announcement but also over its odd timing.

Tensions rose between India and Pakistan exponentially when the China Pakistan Boundary Agreement was officially signed on March 2, 1963. The agreement sought to “delimit and demarcate” the boundary between China’s Xinjiang region, and its proximate regions, which formed part of Kashmir under Pakistan’s control and resulted in the demarcation of a new international border and a territory exchange between Pakistan and China. As a result of these developments, China ended up controlling all of the present-day Xinjiang region.

Through the agreement with China, Pakistan made two noteworthy gains. Firstly, it consolidated its relationship with China, signalling to both India and the United States that Pakistan had a powerful friend in the region. Secondly, by negotiating – and reaching an agreement – with China on a border in Kashmir, Pakistan was able to establish its sovereignty over those parts of Kashmir which it controlled. This was a major setback to Indian claims that the entirety of Kashmir was an indivisible whole and an unquestionable part of India. Once China established its writ over the areas it had received through the agreement with Pakistan, it became virtually impossible for India to reclaim them without going to war with China.

Political leadership in India, therefore, was appalled by the Pak-China agreement and saw it as a proof of Pakistani insincerity. Almost immediately the matter was taken up in Lok Sabha, India’s lower house of parliament. Nehru told the parliamentarians that Pakistan’s official claims of having given up just over 2,000 square miles of territory to China were not correct. China, indeed, had gained control over 13,000 square miles — almost all those parts of Xinjiang region which during the British Raj in India had been included in Kashmir. This, he said, became possible because Pakistan had surrendered “that part of the Indian territory in Jammu and Kashmir which is under Pakistan’s illegal occupation”.

Countering the speeches being made in the Indian parliament, Bhutto addressed Pakistan’s National Assembly and argued that the Indian attitude “confirms our genuine apprehensions that there has been no real desire on the part of India to reach an honourable and equitable settlement with us on Kashmir”.

Police and protesters clash in Kashmir | Mukesh Gupta, Reuters

As the stalemate continued, the political situation within Pakistan was rapidly deteriorating. Indian intelligence concluded, and rightly so, that Ayub Khan’s regime found itself in hot waters. In a secret letter written to Commonwealth Secretary Y D Gundevia, India’s high commissioner in Pakistan, G Parthasarathy, quoted a highly credible Pakistani source – mentioned in the letter as Colonel Mohtarram – as saying that Ayub Khan was increasingly becoming unpopular among the masses as well as in the army. His unpopularity in the army could have been because of his corrupt dealings, his involvement in partisan politics and his ill treatment of senior officers. The Pakistani source believed an underground campaign against Ayub Khan was being run from England and was gaining strength. Given his desperate position within Pakistan, the source apprehended, Ayub Khan “might start the so-called ‘Jihad’ against India in the hope of consolidating his own position.” The Indians, the colonel suggested, “should therefore be prepared to meet such a situation”. He also warned that Pak-China relations were likely to deepen.

These reports caused grave apprehensions in New Delhi. An unstable regime in Pakistan could create trouble in Kashmir, especially if there had been some secret arrangement between Pakistan and China. On July 24, 1963, Bhutto gave a long and fiery speech in the National Assembly and claimed that “an attack by India on Pakistan would involve the territorial integrity and security of the largest State in Asia”. This strengthened suspicions in New Delhi that a secret pact actually existed between China and Pakistan.

The Indians took the matter to the Americans, raising alarm over how a Pak-China alliance could wreak havoc in Kashmir. The Americans, however, assured the Indians that they had been guaranteed by the Pakistanis that there was no secret deal between Pakistan and China.

The American assurances did little to assuage Indian concerns. Over the course of the next year, relations between India and Pakistan plummeted even further. In early 1964, India redesignated the heads of state and government in Jammu and Kashmir as “governor” and “chief minister” – instead of Sadr-e-Riasat and Prime Minister – and called for the hoisting of the Indian flag on government buildings in the state instead of the state’s own flag. In September that year, Pakistan followed suit in its part of Kashmir by replacing the Azad Kashmir flag at the President’s House in Muzzafarabad with the Pakistani flag.

Kashmiris watch the funeral procession of a local militant | Dar Yasin, AP

Tensions burst forth in the summer of 1965 when guerrilla fighters – hailed as “mujahideen” in the Pakistani press – invaded Indian-controlled parts of Kashmir. According to Indian sources, “5,000 armed men, trained and supported by the Pakistani army had been sent in across the cease-fire line to commit arson and sabotage, to strike at our security forces and to incite the local people to rise against the Government”. Pakistan vehemently denied having designed the infiltration, arguing that the “Azad Forces” which had invaded the Indian-controlled part of Kashmir was an organic and indigenous response to the Indian occupation. Pakistan also maintained that Pakistani military action in support of the “Azad Forces” was only an act of self-defence undertaken after India had violated the ceasefire line.

The UN, however, saw Pakistan as the aggressor and directed it to observe the ceasefire line and abide by the status quo. In a letter to the UN Secretary General, Ayub Khan refused to comply. “I fear that your present appeal will only serve to perpetrate that injustice by leaving the people of occupied Kashmir to the mercy of India. What is to become of the brave people of Kashmir who are fighting for their freedom? I cannot believe that it would be the intention of the United Nations to permit India to liquidate them and to consolidate its stranglehold over occupied Kashmir,” he wrote.

The invasion by the “Azad Forces” led to massive retaliation by the Indian military not only against Pakistan but also within the state of Jammu and Kashmir. An intense military campaign was started to rid Kashmir of outside elements as well as any local pro-Pakistani activists. Regular Pakistani military units also entered the Indian-administered Kashmir, citing Indian atrocities there and as a declaration of support for the Kashmiri people. Concomitantly, India launched a full scale attack on Pakistan’s western border near Lahore and Sialkot. The Pakistani authorities were not expecting this attack.

Pakistan immediately looked towards its allies, particularly the US and Britain, for help but the State Department did not find it prudent to support Pakistan. Ayub Khan invoked the assurances given by America in 1959, which made it incumbent on the US to provide support to Pakistan in the event of a war but the American government refused to entertain this plea and “did not accept Pakistani denials of infiltration across the ceasefire line”. Shortly thereafter the American government imposed a military embargo on both India and Pakistan.

Pakistan vehemently protested against the embargo. In repeated discussions with the American ambassador to Pakistan as well as the British high commissioner, Bhutto pleaded for a re-evaluation of the policy. India, he argued, was still receiving aid from the Soviet Union whereas Pakistan was getting no arms since it relied solely on weapons from its Anglo-American allies. The embargo, thus, disproportionately affected Pakistan, greatly weakening its position. But all his pleas fell on deaf ears.

Anglo-American indifference was not for want of sympathy for the Pakistani case. Indeed, the September 6, 1965, attack on Lahore and Sialkot had convinced many in London and Washington that, while Pakistan might have initiated the conflict, it was Indian belligerence which had exacerbated it. There was also some recognition that Pakistan would need some guarantee regarding the resolution of the Kashmir issue for it to agree to a ceasefire.

The war, however, made it clear that India was far stronger militarily than Pakistan and was willing to hold onto Kashmir even at the cost of an indefinite war of attrition. And important international players knew this. On September 16, 1965, the British high commissioner in New Delhi wrote to the Commonwealth Relations Office in London asking for a reappraisal of British policy on Kashmir: “I feel it must be recognized that our historic policy of holding the balance between India and Pakistan no longer accords with the facts: By her action in August 1965, Pakistan in effect abandoned her attempt to secure a political and diplomatic solution of the Kashmir dispute in favour of a military solution. This has now probably failed. India appears from here to be on the way to achieving substantial military superiority over Pakistan through the attrition of Pakistan armour and aircraft. If that assessment proves to be correct, I am convinced that India would not submit to a political settlement at this stage which appeared to favour Pakistan’s claims.”

After recognising India’s military superiority, he dwelt on the China connection. “If a political settlement enabled Kashmir to opt into Pakistan, Pakistan and China would then have a common land frontier of several hundred miles accessible by a main motor road within easy striking distance of one of the most thriving industrial areas of India, the Punjab … I do not believe that India could now accept the self-determination of an area which permitted Pakistan and China to develop direct land communications through Ladakh. Nor, as I see it, would this be in the interests of the West.”

The prospects of a close Pak-China collaboration right next to India caused considerable anxiety within the Soviet Union too. Moscow, indeed, pressurised New Delhi to accept a ceasefire with Pakistan by raising the spectre of Chinese aggression.

But its Western allies made it clear to Pakistani interlocutors that any secret Pak-China endeavour would lose Pakistan all Western support for its stance on Kashmir. The Pakistani government was, therefore, keen to dispel such misgivings. After meeting Ayub Khan, Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan told his British counterpart that the Field Marshal contemptuously dismissed the “possibility of Chinese intervention in [an] Indo-Pakistan war”. The Iranian ambassador quoted the Pakistani president as saying that “Pakistan would never be [a] Chinese satellite” even though it was “prepared if necessary to be [a] United States Satellite”. Ayub Khan also assured the Americans and the British that he had unofficially asked the Chinese to show restraint on the China-India border.

On September 19, 1965, however, China issued an official message to India, demanding that the, “Indian Government dismantle all its military works for aggression on the Chinese side of the China-Sikkim boundary or on [the] boundary itself before midnight of September 22, 1965.” China also demanded the return of four kidnapped Tibetan inhabitants, 800 sheep and 51 yaks alleged to be captured by Indian troops.

The Indians responded to these Chinese demands with deep agitation. “…[T]he Government of India cannot but observe that China taking advantage of the present unfortunate conflict between India and Pakistan is concocting without any basis casus belli in order to commit aggression against India.” These protestations clearly suggested that India could not afford a simultaneous conflict with China and Pakistan.

On September 22, 1965, Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri accepted an offer by Soviet President Kosygin to broker a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan.

Dhaka, December 16, 1971

A defeated Amir Abdullah Niazi officially surrendered to his Indian counterpart General Aurora and in doing so announced the end of Pakistani sovereignty over what had been East Pakistan since 1947.

India’s victory was complete. Militarily, the Indian army had enjoyed tremendous success and 93,000 Pakistani soldiers and officers were now in its custody. In the West, India had thwarted the Pakistan Army’s initial advances in Chhamb and other parts of Kashmir and, instead, occupied several territories in Pakistan including Thar.

On the political front, India successfully dealt a debilitating blow to the religious basis of Pakistan as more Muslims lived in what became Bangladesh than in what remained of Pakistan. Internationally, too, New Delhi was hailed as a champion of democracy, freedom and humanitarianism that helped Bangladeshis get rid of an oppressive state.

The cataclysmic events of 1971 were obviously incredibly significant. Equally noteworthy is what did not happen. India, for instance, did not try to take over the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. The reason was American pressure on the Indian government to refrain from taking the war into Kashmir. The Americans argued that any Indian action in Kashmir could precipitate a much larger war involving China, the US and the Soviet Union. D P Dhar, chairman of India’s Policy and Planning committee and a key part of India’s diplomatic endeavours before, during and after the 1971 war, admitted that the American intervention had prevented India from making territorial gains on the western front.

Washington, however, did nothing beyond making attempts to avoid a wider conflagration about Kashmir. It did not show any interests in intervening during the war on Pakistan’s behalf. China, too, stayed out of the war. Bhutto, then serving as the president of the truncated Pakistan, made a frank and candid admission of his country’s severely weakened position in a speech to the parliament on July 14, 1972: “Because circumstances were really impossible, India had all the cards in her hands and India is not a generous negotiator. They had Pakistani territory. They had East Pakistan separated from Pakistan. They had 93,000 prisoners of war. They had the threat of war trials and so they were sitting pretty, as the saying goes. What did we have in our hands? Riots, labour troubles and all sorts of internal dissensions … It was a nation completely demoralized, shattered.”

The cataclysmic events of 1971 were obviously incredibly significant.
Equally noteworthy is what did not happen. India, for instance, did
not try to take over the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. The
reason was American pressure on the Indian government to refrain from
taking the war into Kashmir.

He was speaking immediately after the signing of the Simla Agreement.

Earlier that year, Dhar met with the French foreign minister who asked him about the chance of a durable peace between India and Pakistan. Dhar was unequivocal. He said India wanted to sign a definitive peace agreement with Pakistan on all issues, including Kashmir. He made it clear to the French minister that “the package of peace related to overall settlement of all elements of tension and friction and that included Kashmir also”.

Three days later, Dhar reiterated the centrality of the Kashmir issue to an enduring Pak-India peace during his meeting with Soviet President Kosygin. “…[I]n Kashmir we are faced with the question whether we leave this artificial line where trouble breaks out frequently or whether we should address ourselves to this problem also once and for all. Even if all other issues between the two countries are resolved but the Kashmir issue is allowed to fester like an open wound, there can be no hope of permanent peace in the sub-continent,” Dhar said.

A chinar leaf entangled in a concertina wire around a police camp in Srinagar | Dilnaz Boga

The war had drastically changed the power dynamics in the subcontinent and Indian leaders were eager to take advantage of the changes. “Our presentation (on Kashmir) … should bear the stamp of our new prestige and authority,” noted Dhar after his visits to France and the Soviet Union in February 1972. Indian diplomats insisted that the 1971 war rendered the 1949 ceasefire line in Kashmir obsolete. They knew they could make a beleaguered Pakistan agree to the new ceasefire line as a secure, inviolable international border.

Pakistan, too, was acutely aware of the asymmetry of power. When the negotiation started on June 28, 1972, Pakistan’s newly appointed Foreign Minister Aziz Ahmed insisted that the peace agreement must demonstrate parity between the two sides. For any agreement to be accepted by the Pakistani public, he repeatedly argued, Pakistan must avoid giving the impression that it capitulated on the issue on Kashmir.

But the Indian delegation was unflinching in its demand that the ceasefire line be turned into an international border and Pakistan cease insisting on the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. Indira Gandhi and Dhar, who were heading the Indian delegation, implied that there could be no movement on the prisoners of war and the withdrawal of Indian troops from parts of Pakistan’s mainland unless Pakistan accepted the ceasefire line as the new border in Kashmir. With his “back against the wall,” Bhutto had little choice but to acquiesce, though he was successful in convincing the Indians that the ceasefire line should be called something short of an internationally recognised border. The final agreement thus read: “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the cease-fire of December 17, 1971 shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognized position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this Line.”

A soldier stands guard on a boat on Dal Lake | Dilnaz boga

The Simla Agreement was transformative in two respects. Firstly, it laid down bilateralism as a principle underpinning all future negotiations between Islamabad and New Delhi. India has always resisted interference and mediation by other states as well as by the UN when it comes to discussing and settling disputes with Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan would often ask the international community to intervene. With the Simla Agreement, Pakistani efforts to involve the rest of the world in dispute resolution in the subcontinent would have only weak moral and legal authority, if any at all. At least this is how India has been interpreting the agreement since 1972. Secondly, the agreement prevented both India and Pakistan from interfering in the territories owned or controlled by the other side.

Even though the Simla Agreement was put into effect, Dhar was not excited about its ability to maintain peace in the long run. What made him particularly pessimistic was the ever-present possibility of a military coup in Pakistan. Indeed, just five years after the agreement, Pakistan experienced its third coup, inaugurating the reign of the most protracted and arguably the most repressive martial law regime in the country — under General Ziaul Haq.

Over the next decade, Pakistan became a crucial player in the America-led proxy war in Afghanistan. The Pakistan Army fostered, facilitated and trained Afghan mujahideen not just militarily but also ideologically. A generation of military officers and soldiers, working with these mujahideen, came of age espousing ideas for a global jihad in general and the one in Kashmir in particular. It was during this era that the Zia regime encouraged the massive growth of Islamic fundamentalist organisations within Pakistan and actively supported the emergence of militant outfits for guerrilla warfare in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

In 1989, the Red Army began its historic retreat from Afghanistan, initiating the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Emboldened by this victory, the Pakistani establishment cast its eyes on Kashmir, yet again.

Srinagar, summer of 1989

The sound of gunfire and explosives reverberated in the valley mingled with vociferous chants of ‘azadi’. Young men, their faces often covered, carried Kalashnikov rifles and roamed the streets of Indian-administered Kashmir, demanding freedom from New Delhi.

The roots of the 1989 insurgency in Kashmir lay in a highly problematic history of electoral politics of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1987, Farooq Abdullah, son of Sheikh Abdullah and the leader of the National Conference, struck a deal with the Indian government led by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi for the resumption of the electoral process in Indian-administered Kashmir. The election that followed resulted in an easy victory for Farooq Abdullah. The only problem was that a large part of the Kashmiri population deemed the voting to be rigged. By 1989, a huge number of Kashmiri youth had risen in anger to protest against what they considered an unrepresentative government. Many of them soon joined an insurgency against the Indian state.

India was quick to respond, deposing Farooq Abdullah, installing Jagmohan Malhotra as governor and deploying 700,000 military and paramilitary soldiers in Kashmir to counter the insurgency. The insurgents received immense support – militarily, diplomatically and financially – from Pakistan. The Pakistani military, particularly the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was eager to take advantage of anti-Indian sentiments within Kashmir. Jihadi outfits, including the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LT), Hizbul Mujahideen and Harkat-ul-Ansar, were propped up to recruit young Kashmiri men, bring them into Pakistan for training and then send them back into Indian-administered Kashmir.

A generation of military officers and soldiers, working with these
mujahideen, came of age espousing ideas for a global jihad in general
and the one in Kashmir in particular.

These developments were taking place as democracy returned to Pakistan in 1988 after an 11-year hiatus and Benazir Bhutto became prime minister. But even though she headed a civilian government, the military establishment tenaciously held on to its influence, particularly on subjects such as Kashmir. Managing relations with India, thus, became a reflection of the conflicting tendencies in Pakistani politics. While the civilian government claimed to work towards a diplomatic solution to the Kashmir issue, the military ardently supported jihadist outfits. This was not lost on the Indian government which rightly considered Benazir Bhutto’s government vulnerable to pressure from the military.

It was only in January 1994 that the two sides finally agreed to resume their formal dialogue process as Pakistan’s foreign secretary presented a series of non-papers – so called because the positions stated therein are not considered official – to his Indian counterpart. These non-papers proposed “measures required to create a propitious climate for peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute and other issues”. These measures ranged from finding the modalities for the holding of a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir to the resolution of other territorial conflicts such as Siachen and Sir Creek.

The Indian reply was dismissive: “India categorically states once again that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India. The question or the need for conducting any plebiscite in any part of India including in the State of Jammu and Kashmir simply does not arise.” The Indian side also claimed that Pakistan had only restated its preconditions for talks through the non-papers. The stalemate thus persisted.

In 1996, Farooq Abdullah once again formed a government in Indian-administered Kashmir with support from Congress. Meanwhile in Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto’s second government was toppled and Nawaz Sharif became prime minister, for the second time, in 1997. Amid all these changes, relations between India and Pakistan were following what by then had become a familiar pattern: talk of peace ran parallel to talk of war.

This pattern continued when Sharif met his Indian counterpart Atal Bihari Vajpayee in September 1998 in New York on the sidelines of the UNGA. The two sides reaffirmed their commitment to bilateral dialogue during the meeting. But when, a few days later, Sharif supported Kashmir’s right to independence during his address at the UN, his remarks elicited strong objections from New Delhi.

A Kashmiri woman being taken away in a police van | Mukhtar Khan, AP

His address marked two critical changes. For the first time, Pakistan supported a “third option” — of letting Kashmir become an independent state if it did not want to remain a part of India but also did not want to join Pakistan. As late as 1995, Benazir Bhutto had rejected the third option, arguing that “it would mean the balkanization of both India and Pakistan, which was not in their interest”.

Secondly, both India and Pakistan became nuclear states by 1998 and their nuclear capabilities meant that the next war could lead to an unprecedented degree of destruction. The age-old question of Kashmir thus operated in a drastically new paradigm – to put it in the words of some American pundits and officials, the dispute over Kashmir became the world’s most dangerous nuclear flashpoint.

It was only after many years that India was willing to come back to the negotiating table. In a historic moment, Prime Minister Vajpayee travelled by bus to Lahore. The world applauded what appeared to be a significant breakthrough. But in the ultimate manifestation of Pakistan’s paradoxical and often parallel policies, the Pakistan Army started sending troops into Kargil on the Indian-controlled side of Kashmir, leading to the fourth India-Pakistan war.

The Kargil War was envisioned as a covert operation; which is why Pakistan initially stressed that an Indian assault was aimed at the Kashmiri mujahideen and that Pakistan had sent its troops to the border only in self-defence. But the massive retaliation by India – known as Operation Vijay – compelled Pakistan to seek American mediation for an immediate ceasefire. This showed India that it could neutralise a military attack by Pakistan, the latter’s nuclear capability notwithstanding.

Washington, February 2003

The American Secretary of State Colin Powell did not seem happy. In a meeting with Khurshid Kasuri, Pakistan’s foreign minister, he expressed concern over the continued infiltration across the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir. Summer was around the corner which would make movement across the LoC easier, pushing Pakistan and India towards the brink of another violent conflict. “We would have a real mess on our hands,” Powell told Kasuri. India and Pakistan, he insisted, would have to take “difficult decisions” were they to avoid war.

The American concerns were well founded. Pakistan and India had been on the precipice of a war in 2001/2002 following a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament. While the US had strengthened its relationship with India tremendously over the 1990s, a post-9/11 Pakistan was once again required as a key strategic ally in the War on Terror. America’s strategic interests in South Asia and the Middle East dictated that Washington did whatever it could to keep both India and Pakistan on its side and stop them from engaging in a war. Condoleezza Rice, Powell’s successor as the Secretary of State, informed Kasuri that “American regional interests were linked to stability in South Asia”.

In his recently published memoir, Neither a Hawk Nor a Dove, Kasuri credits the Bush administration with facilitating the peace process between India and Pakistan. Pressure from the US, Kasuri reveals, compelled President Pervez Musharraf to reign in a hawkish policy towards India and create conditions conducive for something extraordinary — a chance to settle the Kashmir dispute for all times to come.

Beginning in June 2004, India and Pakistan resumed their Composite Dialogue — a process of negotiations that requires simultaneous progress on eight contentious subjects including Kashmir, terrorism, water sharing, nuclear weapons and territorial disputes. In September that year, the two sides decided to set up a mechanism for holding backchannel negotiations on Kashmir. Over the next couple of years, serving and former diplomats and officials from the two countries would hold secret meetings to come up with a formula for a negotiated settlement of the conflict. Publically, too, the two governments sought to mend relations and appeared happy with the progress they were making.

Manmohan Singh, who became India’s prime minister in 2004, however, made it clear to Pakistan that the border in Kashmir could not be redrawn. It could be allowed to become “irrelevant”, though, by letting the Kashmiris travel across it with ease. This eventually led to the historic opening of the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar Bus Service in April 2005.

Meanwhile, local and foreign interlocutors agreed that Pakistan’s overtures for peace could only amount to something if its establishment agreed to unravel the infrastructure it had so meticulously constructed over the past decade and a half for an insurgency in Kashmir. Murmurs in 2005 and 2006 within Islamabad’s most powerful circles suggested that Musharraf was indeed considering that. While active infiltration into Kashmir decreased during and after those years, terrorist incidents elsewhere in India, such as the serial train bombings in Mumbai in July 2006, still haunted the bilateral negotiations. The terrorist attack which claimed over 200 lives led to severe criticism of Pakistan, and public support in India for the dialogue process plummeted rapidly. Pakistan’s official denial of any involvement in the attack as well as Musharraf’s insistence that Pakistan was no longer supporting terrorist outfits creating trouble in India did little to improve the situation.

This is how an official Indian spokesman summed up the situation: “If Pakistan really wants to convince the people of India that we are working against terrorism then it can take some action immediately. For example, the self-styled chief of Hizbul Mujahideen, Syed Salahuddin … should be arrested and handed over to India.” The spokesman also called for an action against Jamaatud Dawa. “Instead of their saying that Jamaat-ud-Dawa is being kept under close watch, the organization should be banned and its leader should be arrested.” A few months later, Musharraf met Singh in Havana and the two sides agreed to set up a joint antiterror mechanism.

In December 2006, Musharraf announced something unprecedented. Pakistan, he said, was willing to give up its claim on Kashmir should India agree to his four-point proposal which suggested that: (a) borders between Pakistan and India remain the same; (b) Kashmir be given autonomy but not independence; (c) a steady withdrawal of troops take place from both Indian and Pakistani administered parts of Kashmir and (d) a joint supervision mechanism be set up with representatives from India, Pakistan and Kashmir to ensure a smooth implementation of these proposals. Pakistan said it was even ready to take back its demand for a plebiscite if India was willing to negotiate on the proposals.

It remains a matter of conjecture if Musharraf was truly committed to a peace deal but the undemocratic nature of his regime allowed him to exhibit flexibility that a civilian government could not afford. At one stage, a bilateral agreement appeared extremely possible. “We were down to the commas,” Kasuri later told Steve Coll of the New York Times. While Pakistan insisted it had to take into account Kashmiris’ sentiment, the conspicuous absence of any Kashmiri representation in the process was hard to miss. After 60 years of going through political suppression, geographical and social divisions and wars, the Kashmiris were still largely absent from a negotiation table laid down to decide their destiny.

It would appear that Pakistan and India were on the precipice of a “deal on Kashmir” when the peace process was thwarted by the political turmoil that engulfed Pakistan in 2007 and continued well into 2008.

On November 26, 2008, 10 young men launched a massive terrorist attack in Mumbai, leading to the killing of 164 people over a period of three days. India later claimed the attackers were members of the Pakistan-based LT. The attack would extinguish the prospects of an India-Pakistan peace for many years to come.

Photo by Dar Yasin, AP

Epilogue: Lahore, 2015

While driving on The Mall, one is likely to spot autorickshaws carrying a certain poster on their backs proclaiming that Pakistan has the right to get Kashmir back from India. The poster also exhorts: “Pakistan can only survive if it keeps its ideology intact.” Together, the two slogans have long served as the bedrock of a state-driven national narrative that sees Islam and Kashmir as its twin foundational pillars.

The pursuit of Kashmir remains embedded in popular and official imagination as strongly as the perception that a nuclear Pakistan has a special status within the Muslim countries. Both these views were manifest – and with a lot of celebratory chest thumping – as Pakistan commemorated the 50th anniversary of the 1965 War with India – a war that Pakistan still claims it won. General Raheel Sharif, Chief of the Army Staff and arguably the most powerful man in the country, partook in the celebrations, announcing that “Kashmir remains the unfinished business of partition”.

Across the LoC, India’s grip on Kashmir has never been stronger. With half a million soldiers stationed there, Kashmir is the most densely militarised area in the world. And enjoying an across-the-board political support for counterinsurgency measures, Indian governments of different ideological persuasions have felt no qualms in perpetuating a reign of terror against the Kashmiri civilians found protesting on the streets.

Chauvinistic and jingoistic rhetoric and policies prevail in both India and Pakistan as far as their stances on Kashmir are concerned. The two governments keep assuring their electorate of the legitimacy of their position as well as their preparedness for war.

The rest of the world, meanwhile, remains a faithful, but passive, audience to a Kashmiri spectacle, in which the same characters are condemned to perform the same acts with the same tragic outcomes.

Research contributed by Saniya Masood and Shanze Fatima Rauf at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and Laila Hussain at the Herald*

This article was originally published in Herald's November 2015 issue. To read more subscribe to Herald in print.

The writer is a Teaching Fellow at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

Comments (156) Closed

Good and eye opening article, showcasing the pain and suffering the Kashmiris went through. I can only pray to God to bring peace in the region, I don't know till when this will go on.

khanmFeb 07, 2016 04:08pm

We have a ferocious ego...The ultimate aim of the ego is not to see something, but to be something and do something so the world and history may remember us with kindness. Lack of introspection, combined with arrogance and a huge ego will not us a long way.

ZakFeb 07, 2016 04:21pm

1947-"Abdullah is very anxious to keep out of Pakistan and relies upon us a great deal for advice.” But, at the same time, he “cannot carry his people with him unless he has something definite to place before them. "

Nehru was manipulating to deceive the Kashmiris and he used Abdullah, who betrayed his own people to help. They openly admit where the sentiments of the people lay. And those sentiments still exist, as displayed by Pakistani flags fluttering in Sri Nagar in the face of Indian brutality.

Adil BalochFeb 07, 2016 04:22pm

While we hear the cries of Kashmir and their lost people, can someone please mention the Balochs that are missing and found dumped somewhere? How can we live in such a biased and self centered world, it amazes me.

NachiketFeb 07, 2016 04:26pm

According to my understanding, India was not born on 15 August 1947. India always existed from time immemorial. In 1947, English rule came to an end and India continued to exist. A part of India seceded from the mainstream country and became Pakistan. This is the history we in India learnt in schools.

ZakFeb 07, 2016 04:42pm

To this day India has not allowed the world to see the Maharajas 'accession agreement'. No journalist is allowed to have access to it. Why?

vallabhbhaiFeb 07, 2016 04:42pm

Good. Just history.

JibbooFeb 07, 2016 04:47pm

Again, a very lopsided narrative. What about the plight of the Kashmiri Pundits -- their forced displacement (owing to threats, firing bullets at night, lobbing grenades, attacking temples, plundering, kidnapping, killing, etc.) is one of the largest in recent times -- that too within their own nation? I am disappointed with the well-meaning people in Pakistan who have kept a studied but deafening silence on the issue.

P S NatarajanFeb 07, 2016 04:49pm

A very impartial and objective narrative of the events. Ideally Kashmir should have been an independent state, and its sovereignty and territorial integrity secured and guaranteed by India and Pakistan.

Sunil Feb 07, 2016 04:54pm

In pursuit of Kashmir, Pakistan lost a territory, economy crumbled.

Ali Feb 07, 2016 05:08pm

A highly biased and one-sided article culled from official Indian 'declassified' documents.

Waleed khanFeb 07, 2016 05:13pm

Brilliant Article :)

R S ChakravartiFeb 07, 2016 05:14pm

Take a look at the first picture of a demonstration in Srinagar. You call the situation in Kashmir "brutal oppression". Would such a demonstration be permitted in Muzaffarabad? Gilgit? Balochistan? Or by your all-weather friends in Xinjiang? Tibet? Please introspect.

Omar Feb 07, 2016 05:39pm

In Swat and Fata you use helicopter gunships, fighter aircrafts and media bans to raise villages and towns to the ground. On the other hand, you express solidarity with Kashmir. Please stop brainwashing the people, hasn't Pakistan suffered enough because of this twisted policy?

ManoharFeb 07, 2016 05:54pm

A detailed, balanced piece. As an Indian it has always pained me to see a country like ours that wants to be respected as the biggest democracy in the world, can do what it has been doing in Kashmir. Pakistan's intrusions aside, the killings and abductions and rapes are engraved in the history of Kashmir. Not exactly the best way to win hearts. The Junagarhs and Manavadars and Hyderabads came to India on one pretext or the other.
We need to show we have a big heart - to the Kashmiris and the rest of the world alike - but most of all, to our own children.
Let's just ask them I say.

vickyFeb 07, 2016 06:06pm

Simply great!

UDFeb 07, 2016 06:18pm

It's a wrong pursuit Pakistan is following. This pursuit has no end. Pakistan should have been pursuing poverty, education, health, internal security, democracy,chasing all types of bad guys and Polio all along past 65 years. Because of this wrong pursuit, it has remained where it was before 65 years a go and India has reached to the Mars. It's time to retrospect. It's STILL not late. Pakistan must do it now to maintain it's very survival,otherwise I see clouds of doom lurking over its horizon.

Mehul JainFeb 07, 2016 06:20pm

I am amazed that the expulsion of Kashmiri Pandits is never even mentioned in the discussion of Kashmir in Pakistan!

Jimmy RocksFeb 07, 2016 06:29pm

@Zak

'To this day India has not allowed the world to see the Maharajas 'accession agreement'. No journalist is allowed to have access to it. Why?'

Who told you this? New conspiracy theory?

FaisalFeb 07, 2016 06:30pm

@Sunil I don't agree, Pakistan became a nuclear power, otherwise Pakistan wouldn't be here where it is. We are proud of our country.

KALIRAJA THANGAMANIFeb 07, 2016 06:31pm

I thank the authors for a proper write up on Kashmir. We must work for a better relations between people of two countries. Personally I feel like the EU, South Asia with Afghanistan and Iran, Iraq should form a South Asian union. And violence must be opposed in all forms.

ukumarFeb 07, 2016 06:47pm

@Zak Just because you have not seen it does not mean it does not exist. It is accepted by the international community and Mountbatten in 1947. If you see it, you will call it fraudulent. Nothing will satisfy you.

cautiousFeb 07, 2016 06:50pm

Nice read - thanks.

VakilFeb 07, 2016 06:50pm

Nobody denies that there is a strong sentiment in Indian Kashmir for independence or Pakistan merger -- but this largely exists these days in pockets here and there like the Old City areas of Srinagar - densely populated (as shown in Pic 1) where separatists leaders live and have strong local following. Other places are largely peaceful and its people do any thing and everything as other Indians do including taking part in elections etc. What about Jammu division? What about Ladakh? There is practically no sentiment there against India. Making claims based on selective areas of dissent does not wash with anyone internationally, hence Pakistan's case stands isolated, even among Muslim countries - with whom India has excellent relations. Even separatists apparently cannot figure this out. Why? In sum, how will Pakistan 'pursue Kashmir' in isolation? This article makes no mention of this. Why?

Arabinda ChakravartyFeb 07, 2016 07:07pm

Hi Dear,
You missed one important picture here,the surrender scene of Amir Abdullah Niazi in Dhaka, December 16, 1971. Try to be impartial when you write or depict some historical facts.

Arabinda ChakravartyFeb 07, 2016 07:10pm

@Adil Baloch
Rightly said. Thank you.

ShakeelFeb 07, 2016 07:11pm

@Nachiket You were taught incorrectly. Pre-1947 there was no single state called India, what we know today as India and Pakistan and Bangladesh has always been a collection of smaller kingdoms with shifting borders and changing powers. The Indian state pre-partition only existed as the British Colonial territories of India. There has never been India, as there has never been Pakistan or Bangladesh.

SKRFeb 07, 2016 07:44pm

We have had enough of Kashmir dispute history. What we need is a resolution of dispute. Settlement of Kashmiri Pandits back in the valley should form part of resolution. If Kasovo is possible then place for Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir is also possible.

sanaFeb 07, 2016 08:02pm

Yes , we are still living in the past, we are the prisoners of our history .

Ahmed USAFeb 07, 2016 08:10pm

Where is this so called piece of paper called "instrument of accession"... a bone of contention… Let's conduct "Questioned document examination (QDE)" of this so called "instrument of accession" and find out the real truth about the authenticity of this document…

PuthoFeb 07, 2016 08:22pm

One bird in hand is better than two birds in the bush. By chasing the Kashmir dream, Pakistan lost the much larger part of its territory in the East, but still doesn't seem to have learned.

ADCFeb 07, 2016 08:28pm

@Faisal So did North Korea. Doesn't really matter.

arjun pandittFeb 07, 2016 08:30pm

@SKR I am a Kashmiri Pandit and I have seen the fear on the faces of my parents and the horror they faced from the locals and militants alike. I would never go back to Kashmir, even if offered a billion dollars to do so.

akram ansariFeb 07, 2016 08:33pm

@R S Chakravarti Give them jobs and they will stop demonstration and go to work, it is all about the economy my friend.

BablooFeb 07, 2016 08:44pm

Outstanding article! I am going to bookmark this.

RahulFeb 07, 2016 08:46pm

A very balanced article though at times it becomes a little emotional. I think it errs in ignoring recent developments on the Indian side of Kashmir. The rise of the right wing PDP in the valley and its coalition partner, the BJP in Jammu. India never had any alternative to the Abdullahs and the NC and for most of its history, the NC was an unreliable partner. India followed a carrots and sticks policy towards the NC but it had its limitations because at times NC wanted to be independent of both India and Pakistan and other times NC lost all popular support in the valley. With the PDP-BJP coalition and the Congress-NC coalition, India has two good alternatives to rule Kashmir. Having conducted an election with 60 % + turnout which was widely regarded as clean, India is well on its way to consolidating its gains.

JUST BRILLIANTFeb 07, 2016 08:52pm

What a lucid, well research, impartial article! Amazing.

G. DinFeb 07, 2016 08:59pm

@Zak
"To this day India has not allowed the world to see the Maharajas 'accession agreement'. No journalist is allowed to have access to it. Why?"
Google "Instrument of Accession". Moreover, that Instrument is a legal document which you can ask to be produced and litigate in the International Court of Justice. Good Luck!

shopianFeb 07, 2016 09:05pm

I am a Kashmiri from Shopian, I am now 56 yrs old, what I see as the root-cause for the Kashmir issue is the militancy problem. Because of this tourism which was source of livelihood for many Kashmiris has dried up. The birth rate is also high in Kashmir, youths have no jobs, the centre is reluctant to invest in Kashmir as they consider us to be anti national. All these cracks are taken advantage of by people with devious intentions; youths are misled and they lose their lives, nothing good comes out of this conflict.

minniFeb 07, 2016 09:15pm

Waiting for a similar article on Balochistan.

Bal GuptaFeb 07, 2016 09:16pm

Kashmir-1947: This article does not mention about ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs from Azad Kashmir (Pakistan Administered Kashmir).

TruthFeb 07, 2016 09:32pm

There is no justification killing anyone and perhaps 'The only solution is an Independent Kashmir', but the biggest disappointment is civilised nations knowingly ignoring the atrocities in the region!

OK. It is accepted that the Indian Govt. is oppressing the people in Kashmir valley. Is the situation in your Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan very rosy. At least the EC in India conducts reasonably free and fair elections in J&K which has seen a fair degree of participation. What about the scene is so called AJK.

shruti from nimtaFeb 07, 2016 09:41pm

A good analysis. I could rate it with 5 stars but again vital points are missing in this journey. The development of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and analysis of India not attacking the then 'east Pakistan' which was unguarded in 1965 and last not the least, the existing situation of 'Chinese Occupied Kashmir'. Hope you publish this.

A KashmiriFeb 07, 2016 09:52pm

My land remains the most highly militarized zone in the world today. Take the guns and bombs away and then ask us which side we want to be on.
The mass graves of our own martyrs, all sons of the soil have thousands of stories to tell. But deaf ears do not listen.

GKAFeb 07, 2016 09:56pm

Not a Kashmiri narrative - no mention of Hurriyat.

BnathFeb 07, 2016 10:10pm

@Faisal how does that prove Sunil is wrong?

MuneerFeb 07, 2016 10:12pm

A great unbiased factual piece highlighting the plight of innocent Kashmiris . Unfortunately as the article rightly states more than a 100,000 innocent Kashmiris in Indian Occupied Kashmir have lost their lives in a brutal crackdown led by the Indian BSF. Sadly the UN remains silent on such mass human rights violations taking place in the so called world`s biggest democracy which appears to be anything but democratic on the senstive issue of Kashmir and on the sufferings of Kashmiris.

Kashmiri BramullaFeb 07, 2016 10:14pm

@Manohar Thank you for comment, if just your country men like you truly realize the brutal opression Kashmiris have to face. Your comment restore our hopes in India, this brutal opression must stop.

vinFeb 07, 2016 10:24pm

There is no case filed by Hari Singh for Independence. Sheikh Abdullah wanted Independent J&K and had support of Nehru. Nehru gave Akai Chin much before Pakistan handling of Xinjiang to China.
The article reflect how the world committee see J&K issue, also author could have included Pakistan rejected of J&K as part of Pakistan offered by Sardar and Kashmir Valley as part of Pakistan as offered by Nehru. Pakistan will not gain any new territory by plebiscite.

justdoingFeb 07, 2016 10:45pm

Great! Applause to the writer for writing such a detailed article with a NEUTRAL point of view.

PramodFeb 07, 2016 10:45pm

@Zak it is all over the internet if you try to find out

RealistFeb 07, 2016 10:57pm

@Zak It has been published in Indian Newspapers time and again with details and signatures.

DevFeb 07, 2016 11:01pm

Excellent article. I have a simple and pragmatic solution to the Kashmir problem. India and Pakistan should trade off territories for lasting peace

Agha AtaFeb 07, 2016 11:14pm

The Muslim population of Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir (according to the latest report) is 85,67,485 (less than the population of Karachi)

And these 85 lakhs of Muslims do not even want to join Pakistan. They just want to be free, independent of both countries. When a country wants to be free while two neighbours want to own it, there would always, ALWAYS be fights, wars among the three even if it is free.

In the meantime, the government has ruined the lives of two generations of around 15 crore people, just for this Indian occupied country smaller than Karachi population wise.

We have spent close to half a trillion rupees on Kashmir. We have let our two generations of approximately 10 crores die in these 70 years with no education, our cities are in shambles; the condition of our hospitals is so embarrassing.

Instead of spending half a trillion rupees on Kashmir, supposing we had spent it on improving our city infrastructures , OR in educating our nation, where would we have been?

Another Indian sri1Feb 07, 2016 11:57pm

@Ali "A highly biased and one-sided article"
Yes of course. Perhaps because some facts are against what you have learned till now? Read world newspapers and you will see that this author has been professional and unbiased.

Indiana JanardhanFeb 07, 2016 11:57pm

@Jibboo, DItto! Although a very informative article, the first thing I noticed was the lack of reference to cruel displacement of Kashmiri Pundits. Also Pakistan changed the demography of its side of Kashmir. Now 1947-like conditions are impossible, which makes plebiscite obsolete.

The best way is to accept the status quo and move forward and focus on internal development. There are more pressing issues than this battle of egos.

IqbalFeb 08, 2016 12:15am

If a plebiscite happens in Kashmir very soon Baloch people will demand the same; and it may not stop there.

Neel Feb 08, 2016 12:21am

In pursuit of Kashmir, we are becoming almost a failed state.
We do not even have enough power to light Karachi, how will we develop Kashmir?
We should aim to become a prosperous nation first before taking liability of Kashmir.

RahmatFeb 08, 2016 01:09am

@P S Natarajan
Mr. Narayanan under what terms of partition would Kashmir have been granted independence? Please go through the decree of partition first.

sajid RafiqueFeb 08, 2016 01:16am

@Nachiket We have almost 200 countries today; It's human nature! This is why there isn't a single world government; each nation is unique.

OmarFeb 08, 2016 01:51am

True, the Pakistani state has invoked religious affinities to foster a continuous support within the populace for its policy toward Kashmir. But it is important to remember the strategic significance that Kashmir has for both Pakistan and India. Issues like water resources, I think, lie at the heart of the whole problem. Ideological rhetoric must be supplanted by talks about real strategic interests of both parties so that a dispassionate analysis of the dispute might take place and a negotiated settlement become possible.

Akram HindustaniFeb 08, 2016 01:56am

According to my understanding, India was not born on 15 August 1947. India always existed from time immemorial. In 1947, English rule came to an end and India continued to exist. A part of India seceded from the mainstream country and became Pakistan. This is the history we in India learnt in schools.

Akram HindustaniFeb 08, 2016 01:57am

Take a look at the first picture of a demonstration in Srinagar. You call the situation in Kashmir "brutal oppression". Would such a demonstration be permitted in Muzaffarabad? Gilgit? Balochistan? Or by your all-weather friends in Xinjiang? Tibet? Please introspect.

Akil AkhtarFeb 08, 2016 03:47am

@Adil Baloch The Baloch need to free themselves from the clutches of the Sardars.

IsraFeb 08, 2016 04:47am

Omission to mention of the UN resolution over Kashmir !

ZiaFeb 08, 2016 05:13am

@Arabinda Chakravarty Totally out of context. The surrender of General Niazi has nothing to do with the historical Kashmir narrative. Neither does the massacre of thousands of innocent Sikhs in 1984 in India.

Fried ChilliesFeb 08, 2016 05:20am

Isn't it time to change tact? I mean you can't keep doing the same thing again and again while expecting a different result

Ajay SharmaFeb 08, 2016 05:45am

I have to admit that this is a completely truthful and well researched article with no bias towards any side.

Akil AkhtarFeb 08, 2016 06:59am

@Akram Hindustani Yes they are...

RoyFeb 08, 2016 07:11am

In depth and courageous article by Dawn. This must be bitter pill for many on both sides of the border.

RoyFeb 08, 2016 07:15am

@Shakeel
ever heard of emperor Ashoka?

RajeshFeb 08, 2016 09:11am

Well written Ma'am; if only our history was as well written as this article, we might have been able to convince our young generations to live as better human beings.
The subcontinent has been the biggest loser to this madness.

ssFeb 08, 2016 09:30am

What an excellent piece of writing. And so totally objective. My salutations to the authors.

SandyFeb 08, 2016 09:58am

@Shakeel

If you look at it, there was no USA, Britain, Germany, UK, Saudi Arabia, or any other country a few hundred years ago. They are all modern creations

Hamid shafiq Feb 08, 2016 09:59am

It's a dead-end story which has never been solved because it makes billions of dollars for the weapon market of the western world.

wellwisherFeb 08, 2016 10:28am

Let's think of future: 1. let the line of control be an international boundary; 2.eliminate terror mechanisms; 3. Make religion a personal matter. Joint attack on poverty through education, healthcare and economic development.

DipshekharFeb 08, 2016 10:36am

A famous dialogue from the film Haider : " When two elephants fight, it is the grass that gets destroyed" !

R S ChakravartiFeb 08, 2016 10:40am

@akram ansari You are perfectly right. But it seems to me that in the Kashmir valley most of the jobs will have to come through tourism. Maybe the IT industry can develop. There are Kashmiri businessmen at all the coastal cities in India where tourists gather.

R S ChakravartiFeb 08, 2016 10:52am

@Shakeel He didn't say that ancient India was a state in the modern sense (they never told us that in school!). There was some amount of cultural unity and the people of India knew each other far better than they did people of other areas. Some of this unity was captured by Hindu mythology. Names of places reveal some of it: Lahore, Kandahar, Lanka. Kashmir was part of our history at all times.

R S ChakravartiFeb 08, 2016 10:53am

@Faisal I agree and am sure everyone does.

R S ChakravartiFeb 08, 2016 10:56am

@Mehul Jain I also searched for "Kashmiri Pandit" and "1990" here but didn't find either. It is a tragedy both for them and the Muslims; most of them are surely good humans who would not have wanted to expel a section but were terrorised.

SilvesterFeb 08, 2016 12:54pm

Excellent read. Very good

Adil MemonFeb 08, 2016 01:51pm

I think we should we should first focus on cleaning our house. First address the issues of Baloch which can become another East Pakistan and then we should talk of Kashmir.

diptiFeb 08, 2016 02:00pm

This article reflects the maturity attained by the Pakistani intelligentsia in accepting the reality of the South Asian conundrum. In my dealings with Pakistanis of the millennial generation, I am struck by their willingness to stave off the prejudices of the past. This obsession with territory does nothing but fill the coffers of arms merchants. I think India --the India that lies beyond Lutyens Delhi and its smug media establishment -- is ready to receive warmly the new Pakistan. We must work towards visa less travel for all South Asians, freedom to work anywhere, seamless movement of investment and common human rights based on secular freedoms.

prashanthFeb 08, 2016 02:28pm

@Shakeel it was called Bharath. Bharath name came from the emperor Bharatha. It was also called Bharatha Khanda to signify that it was covered with waters on three sides of it(Arabian sea, Bay of Bengal and the Hindu Maha Sagar). During that time Afganistan was called as Gandhara. the people from China were called as Chinas, and the people from Iran, Saudi called as Yavanas.

PrakashFeb 08, 2016 02:46pm

This lengthy story is silent on expulsion of Kashmiri Pandits from the valley. What could be the reason?

HoulbelatFeb 08, 2016 03:11pm

@Jibboo : How lopsided. Compare the example of the Hyderabad State with Kashmir. Hyderabad with majority Hindu population under a Muslim Nawab and Kashmir with majority Muslim population under a Hindu Nawab. Hyderabad was annexed by India with might and expelled the Nawab. Is it not a simple case of "might is right"?

AroonFeb 08, 2016 03:28pm

Kashmiris want freedom Why? Because they are majority Muslim region? Then, what about the Pandits in Kashmir? Will they get their own country? Isn't Baloch freedom as valuable as Kashmir freedom? If we start with idea of plebiscite, then every town will become a country in South Asia. Imagine Pakistan and India if we went with plebiscite based on religion, region, language, colour, etc..

A Fairdeal MuslimFeb 08, 2016 03:34pm

In pursuit of Kashmir, we can loose another part. So, it is better to leave it for good. Both the countries are on the wrong side.

AroonFeb 08, 2016 03:39pm

Something Pakistani politicians think is that for Pakistan to exist there must be a villain. It ended up being India. Change the villain to underdevelopment, corruption, poverty and lack of education, that will do miracles for Pakistan.

Sudhir NeyalasingerFeb 08, 2016 03:39pm

@Shakeel India existed even before we had Muslim invaders coming in. It was one in the days of Emperor Bharath when he ruled it. It became fragmented into princely states hundred of years after his rule. India is called Bhaarat because it was ruled by Bharat.

Sudhir NeyalasingerFeb 08, 2016 03:43pm

@akram ansari For that they should first ensure an atmosphere of peace. Then they can revive the tourism industry there and provide them jobs. Toursim has taken a big hit in Kashmir. People prefer to go to Leh Ladhak than the valley in its current state.

GuestFeb 08, 2016 04:11pm

@Truth not sure Kashmir is going to stop India's progress.

KAZIM REZAFeb 08, 2016 04:17pm

In Pakistan psyche Kashmir is still a prime issue.The story reflects how the jugular vein is ticking, an example of researched based journalism.It could draw more attention if the social and economic as well as political conditions of both parts sighted with Indian intelligentsia's apathy. However, reference of Arundhati Roy's great mission in the context would have become more effective. Determination of Kashmiri people and the mass upsurge in the occupied land can't be subsided.Since 1989 they are the prime factor of political scene.The present Sheikh had told it recently.If the people of Sylhet could express their choice on joining India or Pakistan in 1947 by vote why not the Kashmiris?The people of Kashmir through their blood have won over the Indian sword. India can bypass it through their brutal presence but certainly they can't hold the land for a further 70 years.

JunaidFeb 08, 2016 04:51pm

@Akram Hindustani "Take a look at the first picture of a demonstration in Srinagar. You call the situation in Kashmir "brutal oppression". Would such a demonstration be permitted in Muzaffarabad? Gilgit? Balochistan? Or by your all-weather friends in Xinjiang? Tibet? Please introspect."

Thank you for asking us to notice one demonstration you graciously permitted instead of noting the mass graves (which contain over 2,000 bullet-ridden bodies), round the clock curfews, saturation-level troop presence, enforced disappearances, shooting to death for stone-throwing, arbitrary arrests and torture, enforced demographic changes and deportation of foreign journalists who report on the unmarked mass graves!

Thank you for making us see what a shining beacon of democracy, human rights and political freedom India is compared to Pakistan or its all-weather friend China!

Sudhanshu SwamiFeb 08, 2016 04:52pm

From this article, its clear that Pakistan will have a problem in Gilgit, it can't be made a part of Pakistan that easily. China's concerns can't be addressed.

LunaticFeb 08, 2016 05:11pm

@khanm Well said, When "I" is very important "Eye" becomes useless to see blindingly obvious truths. Fericious ego, lack of introspection are all an "I" problem.

SanaFeb 08, 2016 05:32pm

Declassified documents from India! Give me a break! Oppression of Kashmiris is continuing from Sikh regime. British just sold these innocent people to another oppressor. I wonder when the real education will reach Indian people's minds. Imagine if your own family goes through the atrocities caused in Kashmir.

jakojiFeb 08, 2016 06:01pm

People - please get on with your lives. Nothing's going to happen. Maybe someday when we have the maturity of the West, we can create a loose union of independent states (a;a EU), with free access across borders. Till then swallow this bitter pill.

GuruFeb 08, 2016 06:57pm

A well researched article. The irony is that by going nuclear, Pakistan has made any settlement other than the status-quo moot.

kausar aliFeb 08, 2016 08:28pm

Kashmir deserves autonomy.

GhaznaviFeb 08, 2016 08:58pm

"Bhutto, then serving as the president of the truncated Pakistan, made a frank and candid admission of his country’s severely weakened position in a speech to the parliament on July 14, 1972: “

But then like a leader he went on to put forth the foundations of Nuclear deterrent. His vision resulted in restoration of balance of power in the south Asia. Now it is up to us to find another leader to lay the foundations of Pakistan as an economic power.

MTAFeb 08, 2016 09:10pm

@Hamid shafiq

As long as we find an excuse of our problems in foreign conspiracy, we will never be able to resolve them. We should stop deflecting and start facing what ails us.

DeepakFeb 08, 2016 09:26pm

@Zak It is there on wikipedia. Go have a look.

SimbaFeb 08, 2016 09:27pm

I must congratulate the author, Saniya Masood and Shanze Fatima Rauf and Laila Husain for this excellent piece. My respect for Pakistani authors and Dawn has increased manifold after reading this largely accurate account of the history of Kashmir conflict. Very rarely do we find a unbiased article from any of the leading media houses of both countries. I would request the authors to only improvise on not missing out major events such as displacement of Kashmiri Pandits, and success of elections in Kashmir which are very central to the topic.

This is journalism at its best. An excellent chronicle of the events from partition to current ststus in Kashmir, the parties involved and how the dynamics between India and Pakistan changed over the 70 years by the interests of China,Russia and the US

rajivFeb 09, 2016 04:00am

@Shakeel

The area comprising Pakistan, India and Bangladesh was always known as Hindustan, even during the Mughal period. Yes there were many kingdoms, and new kingdoms and territories were continuously being formed. That's pretty normal. For example present day Germany doesn't look anything like the Germany of the 17 or 18 hundreds. It's immaterial if there was one country called India, however as a whole this region is quite distinct.

Ray BajwaFeb 09, 2016 07:32am

@khanm
So true, hope more and more understand that.

FarhanFeb 09, 2016 08:21am

We are again flirting with West and India by giving undue advantages to China which China does't deserve. Did China helped us in any way during 1971? Such friends are suckers and we may witness our breakup by inviting more foes against us. We have ruined our relations with Afghanistan, Iran, Syria by joining the Saudi alliance. We have lost our direction!

AshishFeb 09, 2016 08:47am

Moral of story
1. Pakistan and India both should focus on civilian development
2. Corruption free government is the necessity of both the country.
3. Religion should kept out of society.

vinFeb 09, 2016 09:31am

@KAZIM REZA
Plebiscite of Sylhet was part of Independence Act. Kashmir plebiscite was not part of the Independence Act.

vinFeb 09, 2016 09:34am

@Houlbelat
Hyderabad was not annexed by India. Hyderabad filled a case in UN for Independence.

MOTIRAM Feb 09, 2016 10:34am

Very informative and eye opening.

herrssidJul 12, 2016 12:47pm

@Adil Baloch Dear Adil, don't worry. India is coming to liberate Balochistan just as it liberated Bangladesh. At the moment, we are making preparations. Iranians too have agreed but they are asking for a piece of Balochistan whereas we are promising them the Islamabad and parts of Punjab. Once these negotiations are over, you would see real action unfold on the ground.

herrssidJul 12, 2016 12:49pm

@Nachiket Which school board did you do your schooling from? However, in a way, what you are saying is true. It's just that it is a very ideology inspired interpretation of history but mind you, it is not distortion of history.

ShibuJul 12, 2016 02:18pm

Pakistan should send an open invitation to the disgruntled Kashmiris to settle in Azad Kashmir in the land of the pure.

UmerJul 12, 2016 04:00pm

Kashmir will have its freedom one way or the other.

hostJul 12, 2016 04:44pm

Here is the deal;
Lets invite international media for a visit to Indian and Pakistani parts of Kashmir to see with their own eyes and ask the common people which country do they love. Do it next week.

The country that forbids the media from visiting their part must lose his right to call Kashmir theirs.

Desi liberals and Indians will never be happy with this idea because it'll cut their long crap and give a distilled result - Kashmiris "prefer" Pakistan over India!

ShezadJul 12, 2016 05:01pm

The Instrument of Accession is reportedly lost by India.

Although there is no legal basis for it.

Seven decades down the line and there is no peace while the people of Kashmir burn.

AJJul 12, 2016 07:46pm

There are two choices that Pakistan as a country has with regards to Kashmir. You can either choose to move on to bigger issues in your country, or you can continue living in the past and bring up the rights/wrongs of history. What matters is what the current reality is. Today Kashmir is a part of India, and no Indian worth his salt will ever allow it to be any different. Pakistan tried this twice before, and failed. For those calling for Kashmir to be separated, you have to understand one simple thing. If Kashmir were to go, then all the other states will do the same and current day India will cease to exist. And I am certain that the master strategists in Islamabad know this, because all they are interested in is to see the disintegration of India. Or else why would you care about Kashmir when you can't even take care of what you currently have?

Don't burn your own house under the illusion that your neighbor's house will also burn.

SimbaJul 12, 2016 08:32pm

@Zak "To this day India has not allowed the world to see the Maharajas 'accession agreement'.

It is irrelevant after the Shimla Agreement. It was on Bhutto's appeal that India agreed on the term 'Line of Control', while it is the international border for all practical purposes.

Congratulations to Dawn and the research authors from LUMS for publishing such a detailed and neutral account of the Kashmir history

AbidJul 12, 2016 09:00pm

a beautiful article...

Indian MuslimJul 12, 2016 10:54pm

Let me remind and rectify Author's fact about Kargil war ceasefire as mentioned in the article - "The Kargil War was envisioned as a covert operation"
It was Vajpaiye who informed US that if the Kargil War is not ended, they have no choice but has to go for a full blown war which may lead to a Nuclear devastation as both countries were a Nuclear power that time. Clinton Called Nawaz sharif who then had flown to Washington and signed / declared Ceasfire.
Clearly shows that the Authors did not do an in-depth research as many here believe

JavedJul 12, 2016 11:44pm

@Shezad
I think it is only handful of hired goons who continue to burn. Triade against India in IOK means free money from sponsors.

Azad KashmirJul 13, 2016 09:44am

Kashmir is the jugular vein of Pakistan and we hope Pakistan continues it support for liberation of Kashmir

shantanuJul 13, 2016 10:51am

Ya!! and what about pakistan occupied kashmir and the atrocities done there ??? those done even come out in the open !!!

Jamil AwanJul 13, 2016 11:04am

@R S Chakravarti infact it's not permitted even in a democratic country like India, isn't there curfew in the state of Kashmir?

Sunita WadiyarJul 13, 2016 12:27pm

@Zak Those are few ISI stoogies. Even ISIS flags were displayed by handful of terrorists.

hostJul 13, 2016 12:51pm

@shantanu

no atrocities of any form are happening in Azad Kashmir .. want proof?
Visit Pakistani part of kashmir with free media anytime .. but you have to also allow free media in IoK at the same time. Deal??

Send me your passport and I'll arrange your visa within 2 days. FYI

OBSRVRJul 13, 2016 01:11pm

What a shame! A Kashmiri PM is silent on Kashmir!

Naive ReaderJul 13, 2016 02:08pm

Silly question: If Kashmiris are so fond of Pakistan, shouldn't they all migrate to Pakistan?
No one thinks either the Indians or their government would care much about it. I believe India will never give Kashmir away as it is geographically significant for their national security. The only major effect will be on Pakistan, where the people, the military and the government are obsessed with this impossible dream wasting resources that should have helped their society achieve much better social and economic improvements.

DEV USAJul 13, 2016 06:11pm

@Simba YES IT IS THE BEST UNBIASED ARTICLE ON KASHMIR THAT I HAVE READ

KayjixJul 13, 2016 07:10pm

@Shakeel I am apalled @ your statement brother: have you heard terms like Dutch East India Company? British East India Company? the Indian Ocean? A whole group of islands christened West Indies coz someone sailed to look for India? or Native Americans getting called Red Indians? India always existed, for centuries ... Pakistan was born as a fragment on 15Aug47.

ANTJul 13, 2016 08:44pm

As a Kashmiri pandit the concept of union with a theocratic Islamic state whether it is Pakistan or an independent Kashmir is unacceptable.
What the world doesn't know and is even missed by this long article is the ethnic cleansing of the minority pandit community. Something the Pakistani and Kashmiri Muslims want to ignore for obvious reasons and for the Indians to avoid because of the immense sense of shame that they allowed it to happen in a supposedly strong secular nation.
Partition like that of undivided India is the only solution IMO.

IndJul 13, 2016 09:41pm

Pakistan has already lost a territory and the economy, power situation, their standing in the world etc has been in shambles and they show solidarity with the Kashmiris. The unimpassioned youth of Kashmir does not even understand that Musharaf did not even think about them in the four point formula that he came up with. KEEP CALM AND PROGRESS

Radhika Jul 13, 2016 11:58pm

@Agha Ata true well said .

NeerajJul 14, 2016 01:19am

@host not gonna happen! We won't let it happen! Take a hike!

SimbaJul 14, 2016 02:26pm

@Javed " I think it is only handful of hired goons who continue to burn. Triade against India in IOK means free money from sponsors."

You are right. Unemployment is so high that you can hire a demonstrator or riot mob by paying Rs.500 (per person per day). If these guys had jobs, they wouldn't be throwing stones.

AnupamJul 14, 2016 03:12pm

Just one question to those Paistanis who think of China as their biggest supporter.
Does China gives it's Muslims the same rights and freedom to it's Muslims that India gives to Indian Muslims Brothers and Sisters?

KhwarezmiJul 14, 2016 03:40pm

@ANT As a Kashmiri you should stay true to your people and not act like a Quisling. The very majority of Kashmiris don't want to live under Indian occupation, just like you don't want to live in a Muslim country. You of all people should understand this.

KhwarezmiJul 14, 2016 03:46pm

@Kayjix India existed for centuries? Who told you that? In that case so did every land mass on earth (minus some volcanic islands). Please don't lecture us about history. We live in one of the oldest continues habitated places on earth, The Indus Vally, and know our history very well. India as name was not even used by the local population before Europeans came along. Republic of India did not exist before 1947. But if you think that has anything to do with the Kashmiri Liberation Movement then you should read the article again.

KhwarezmiJul 14, 2016 04:00pm

@Bal Gupta You are just making up stories about Azad Kashmir when the fact is 300.000 Kashmiri Musalmans were ethnically cleansed in Jammu alone which was a Muslim majority place before 1947. Just like no Hindu state is interested in being under Muslim Pakistan, just like that Muslim Kashmir is not interested in being under Hindu India. India has no justification in occupying a people against their wills.

ReebaJul 14, 2016 05:24pm

Kashmiris should be careful for what they wish for. Sometimes wishes do come true. If Kashmir becomes independent, there are more chances if it becoming another Afghanistan and ruled by militants. You might think, after independence, the current militancy will go away. It will not. They will always find another reason to fight just like the militancy did not stop after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Peace loverJul 15, 2016 01:56am

The number of lives being lost for the benefit of a few leaders is appalling. What has Pakistani people achieved in the last several decades when corrupt leaders have looted the country and not let it become a strong country. In order to avoid people from noticing their deteriorating conditions, these leaders keep bringing some theory or the other. First it was India and Kashmir, now US as the enemy. Until the people of Pakistan rise against corrupt leaders Pakistan will keep falling behind while the world moves ahead. What has been achieved by going down this path? An ego that has been bruised over and over again! A sliding reputation and loss of international respect. The solution is to build the nation like China and India have done. Only the strong and successful nations gain respect - others keep becoming puppets. Its a choice - continue down this stupid path or start anew and build a successful and prosperous Pakistan.

dcnyJul 15, 2016 10:01am

No one has paid bigger price for dreaming about kashmir than educated Pakitanis , infact this whole country has become hot bed for terrorism, fundamentalism and many other kinds of subversion which could actually lead Syria kind of situation in Pakistan .

Hindus didn't kill Bahadur-Shah Jafar - it was British. Delhi remained the nerve center of so called Indian (south-east-asia) and most likely considering the historical fact..pakistan should ally with India for the betterment of its relations and future growth. So far what Pakistan has is either given or stolen...and history can prove that Chinese can never be relied upon.

NarenderJul 15, 2016 11:56am

@Shakeel you have some problem with your history learning. ITS NOT YOUR FAULT, as pak govt is teaching you the same. Read some history of Indian Subcontinent on google, forget india based sites, you will have better idea of wrong facts you are learning. -- 1. have you ever heard about King Ashoka of Maurya Kingdom and their boundary line. 2. If India didn't existed before British rule, how and when Indian Ocean was named. 3. What was Cloumbus looking for, when he reached South America and discovered Red-Indians. And many more facts are their, but of no use unless you realize that your govt. is teaching you wrong history.

G. DinFeb 05, 2018 07:21pm

@Zak
Yo do not have to wait to look at the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir. Go to the internet and read the whole document.

RamFeb 07, 2018 05:00pm

@Shakeel Culturally all of these states were united and were called as Bharat in Sanskrit texts and as Hind in Persian/Arabic texts.

TruelightFeb 07, 2018 09:01pm

What an article! Fantastic!! Cudos for all the research you have done and providing a very unbiased perspective instead of trying to balance. Many congratulations and best wishes from across the border.

chanderFeb 06, 2019 05:59pm

This year rhetoric over repeat again in 2020

yabba lalFeb 06, 2019 09:07pm

@minni - Awesome--Very well said!!!

K SundarFeb 07, 2019 04:05pm

It is only the history that is being repeated time and again when ground realities have changed drastically.